From: Tom W. <to...@ad...> - 2007-09-05 18:53:39
|
Don, Yeah, that probably sounds like the best solution or at least stating that = the relationship is unknown due to too many generations of seperation rathe= r then saying that there is no relation. As it is now could lead one to dra= wing incorrect conclusions. I almost thought that there was not a direct li= ne from me and this other person, but turned out to be my 14th great grand = parent, but I accidently clicked on my father (almost the same name as me) = and saw that it was a relationship to him. About my other questions, is there still a way to set an anchor peron then = display generations in the pedegree view? Also, is there a way to have Gram= ps remember my choice to not show pictures in the pedegree view? Thanks, Tom Weichmann ---- Don Allingham wrote: > Yeah, the issue is that they use the same code. We might be able to modify it so that we can allow for more generations if called from the relationship calculator as opposed to the status bar. Don On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 09:58 -0700, Tom Weichmann wrote: > Don, > > Just want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. I'm > at work so I can't look at gramps, but I was talking about the > "Relationship Calculator" you get by clicking on > Tools->Utilities->Relationship Calculator. I don't know if this is the > same thing that you are describing in the status bar. > > Thanks, > > Tom Weichmann > > > ---- Don Allingham wrote: > > I'm not really sure. We have some people with over 800K people in > their > database. Also, we have people who believe that they have tracked back > their family by more than 32 generations. > > Don > > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 17:12 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 05.09.2007, 08:49 -0600 schrieb Don Allingham: > > > On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 16:40 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > > But then, this calculation is only true for those who have _all_ > their > > > > ancestors for the last 16 generations. This alone would be > 65536, half > > > > of which would live 500 years ago =E2=88=92 very unlikely. > > > > > > > > I guess most trees are wide for the first few generations, and > then thin > > > > out considerably, so I don=E2=80=99t think there will be many cases > where an > > > > increased depth beyond 15 would make a big difference. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, we limited this in direct response to problems users > were > > > having. The original limit was 32. A surprising number of people > were > > > encountering this problem. > > > > Then I stand corrected, but I really wonder where these people get > their > > data from. Are there files around with the complete European > nobility > > from 800 to now that people have exported? > > > > Greetings, > > Joachim > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list Gra...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |